Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA16504; Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:15:14 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608201615.MAA16504@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #425 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Aug 96 12:15:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 425 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? (Roger Wells) Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? (Michael Ayotte) Re: Letter to New York PSC (Barry F. Margolius) Re: Letter to New York PSC (Zev Rubenstein) Re: Transfer Powerpoint to VHS (Clarence Dold) Re: Transfer Powerpoint to VHS (Michael Ayotte) Re: Does New Area Codes Mean New Caller Cost? (Linc Madison) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Al Varney) Re: End of Permissive Dialing in 954 (Bob Goudreau) Re: GE 916 Wireless Phone Jack System (Bill Newkirk) Re: What is Davar? (Gerry Belanger) Re: InterLATA connectivity in 609? (Mark Smith) Re: ISDN D-Channel Data and Internet Voice (Steve Schear) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rwells@usin.com (Roger Wells) Subject: Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? Date: 20 Aug 1996 15:08:06 GMT Organization: U.S. Intelco Networks, Inc. In article , sjslavin@aol.com (SJSlavin) writes: > Your title says it all -- why not install a semi-pub. Are they not > still available? Semi-pub is a coin phone on your business line. Pay > the monthly line rate (which you are apparently paying already), telco > keeps the coins. What is missing here? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what is missing is Lisa said > they did *not* want to have to pay the monthly fee for a phone out > there and that telco would not install it as a purely public (or > commissionable) pay phone because of the lack of regular usage. > One thing they might consider however is leaving the phone they have > there, but disabling the touch tone pad, or at least disabling all of > it except the '9' and '1' keys. PAT] I would suggest getting the Hello Direct catalog by calling 1-800-444-3556. They have all sorts of devices to restrict calls and apparently good customer support (I have never had occasion to use it but I understand it's very good.) Incidently, I first heard about Hello Direct from this newsgroup. Roger Wells (speaking only for myself) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, Hello Direct is a good place to start looking for a variety of odds'n'ends to make your telephone work more efficiently for you. Some say their prices are a little high, but the quality of their stuff seems to be worth it. Another way of remembering their phone number is 800-HI-HELLO. I certainly wish they would consider becoming one of the sponsors here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: michael@ayotte.com (Michael Ayotte) Subject: Re: Getting a Semi-Public Pay Phone? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:57:07 -0800 Organization: Ayotte In article , hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote: > My condominium has a swimming pool and clubhouse. There is an > extension phone (from the office line) for emergency calls from the > pool. We are finding more requests by people to use that phone to > check their home machine for messages, call friends, etc. Also, > guests at clubhouse events want to call home to check the babysitter, > etc. > The emergency phone is abused -- we get overseas calls on it. > Could anyone suggest perhaps a tariff on how we could get a Bell pay > phone more inexpensively? I've seen Bell phones at other condo pools > with a layout similar to ours that can't get that much usage. You might try seeing if you can get another phone line installed with local only dialing. If you can get one of the local residents who uses it the most to pay for it, then you could prabably get in under residential terrifs, which means no local call charges. Then they would be able to call their machines, babysitter's etc, and recieve calls from wherever with no toll charges. Michael Ayotte ------------------------------ From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry F Margolius) Subject: Re: Letter to New York PSC Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 02:25:04 GMT Organization: Zippo I too had a similar problem calling my voicemail from a Nynex payphone in the Greenwich Villiage area. Hopefully the PSC will take some action. barry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:22:22 +0000 From: zev@attmail.com (Zev Rubenstein) Subject: Re: Letter to New York PSC Danny Burstein wrote: > I got a response from the phone that said (roughly) "no further > digits may be dialed at this time". I believe that a couple of years ago, NYNEX wildely publicized the replacement of a number of DTMF payphones with rotary dial phones in areas where there was known to be high drug trafficking. The theory was that drug dealers use pagers heavily to keep in touch, and by preventing the entry of DTMF to pager systems, crime would be reduced. In their wisdom, the use of rotary dial phones would accomplish this. Good PR, bad idea. It inconvenienced legitimate customers and could easily be bypassed by the use of hand-held DTMF tone generators. I suspect that NYNEX has enhanced their anti-crime efforts by implementing a software solution, so that they no longer have to replace phones, which is very labor intensive. Hey, that's progress ! Zev Rubenstein Nationwide Telecommunications Resources ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: Transfer Powerpoint to VHS Date: 20 Aug 1996 14:57:48 GMT Organization: a2i network blair@instep.bc.ca wrote: > Does anybody know how I can transfer a timed PowerPoint presentation > (version 7.0 running on Windows 95 on a PC) to VHS video? Resolution > should be 1024x768. Resolution of the final product can't be 1024x768. A standard VHS recorder is only about 250 wide, and 500 tall. S-VHS bumps this up to 375 wide, I think, still 500 tall. On the other hand, if you only mention the 1024x768 because that's what your screen is, and you can deal with the lower resolution from the playback, then there are devices that will record SVGA output from your PC. The "windows95" part doesn't matter, as the device I am thinking of plugs inline between your monitor and the PC connector. They are probably available from many sources. I have seen them at JDR Microdevices in San Jose, CA. JDR CatalogSales 800-538-5000 408-559-1200 BBS 408-559-0253 FAX 408-559-0250 San Jose Store 1238 S. Bascom 408-280-7144 Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ From: michael@ayotte.com (Michael Ayotte) Subject: Re: Transfer Powerpoint to VHS Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:51:33 -0800 Organization: Ayotte In article , blair@instep.bc.ca wrote: > Does anybody know how I can transfer a timed PowerPoint presentation > (version 7.0 running on Windows 95 on a PC) to VHS video? Resolution > should be 1024x768. Umm, VHS can only handle around 400 lines of resolution. A presentation designed for 1024x768 would look like garbage even on the the best broadcast quality NTSC format. There are plenty of ways to get a presentation onto a VHS tape, but you will prabably need to redo the presentation to make it readable. A couple of suggestions: Use only two to four lines of text. Use bold, simple fonts (no italics, no serifs). Display the presentation on a 15" monitor at 640x480 then walk 20-30' away and look at it. If it is still readable, then you are prabably O.K. Michael Ayotte ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Does New Area Codes Mean New Caller Cost? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:19:17 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Lou Jahn <71233.2444@ CompuServe.COM> wrote: > Can anyone help with a minor pricing point? As the new area codes are > introduced, are callers forced to pay higher costs for things such as > Directory Assistance? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At least around this part of the country > in Chicago (Ameritech territory) we are able to still use 411 regardless > of the actual area code (312/630/708/773/847) involved. There is no > extra cost involved other than what is usually charged for directory > assistance. Area 815 however is not included, and never was available > through our local 411. PAT] When the 415/510 split went final, directory assistance was cut over so that you had to dial 1-NPA-555-1212 for numbers across the Bay. For a while, that was to our advantage, since *all* directory assistance calls to other NPAs within our LATA were free, but that has since changed. However, I believe Pacific Bell still charges the same for '411' as for '1-NPA-555-1212', as long as it's within the LATA. Inter-LATA charges, of course, are determined by the IXCs and the California PUC. Pacific Bell has not made any announcements about the upcoming splits and how they will affect directory assistance charges. In particular, before 415/510, a single call to '411' could get two numbers, say one in San Francisco and one in Oakland. Those two numbers now require two separate calls to 415 and 510 D.A. Will the same happen with, say, San Francisco and San Mateo after the 415/650 split? The only situation now that would have a significant effect would be in NPAs that currently straddle LATA boundaries but get split. For example, someone in Barstow can dial '411' for a number in San Diego, and will be charged the Pacific Bell intra-LATA rate, since both numbers are currently in area code 619, even though they're in different LATAs. Next year, when the 619/760 split becomes final, though, that Barstow customer will have to dial 1-619-555-1212, and the call will be carried and billed by the IXC, since all of 619 will then be in a different LATA. However, the reverse will not hold true -- the customer in San Diego will be able to dial 1-760-555-1212 and be billed intra-LATA by Pacific Bell, because 760 will still straddle the San Diego and Los Angeles LATAs. Are you confused yet? Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: news@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? Date: 19 Aug 1996 21:02:45 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote: >> The last panel CO shut down years ago. There are very few >> step-by-step COs left, and by now most of them have microprocessors in >> between the line finder and first selector that capture the dial >> digits for processing. Electronic marker upgrades are available for >> crossbar COs, and everything later is programmable. > Yes, John. You're right. > AT&T/Lucent, NorTel and Siemens people: > _HOW_ much code is going to need to be re-written _and tested_ in order > to expand either half of a NANP style phone number? (My standard > fallback:) Deej? SWAG -- Switch and PBX code will be about 10% of the total, with billing, accounting, maintenance, provisioning, third-party Visual Basic modules, third-party DBase code, COBOL applications, turn-key TELCo systems and the usual Gov'ment/DOD programs making up the lion's share of the effort. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Having survived the conversion of No. 1 ESS to 1A ESS, 1A ESS memory expansion, Carrier Code expansion (from XX to XXX to XXXX), IDDD expansion to 15 digits, NPA expansion from the N0/1X format, di/trivestiture, and the 60's, my '.plan' file contains one line: "... to RETIRE before the North American Numbering Plan grows beyond 10 digits." Al Varney ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:21:47 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: End of Permissive Dialing in 954 rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) writes: >> Your sarcastic generalization is misplaced. How does allowing >> customers to dial 1 before any ten digit number prohibit this? >> If you want to know if it is a toll call, don't dial 1. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Heh? Jeez, Louise, tell that to anyone living in El Lay, Chicago, or > New York, with their tower-of-babble area codes. I don't think such an abrupt reply was appropriate, particularly since he was *not* talking about the cities you mention, but was continuing to discuss the subject noted above, namely, calling in the Miami area. His advice is thus 100 percent correct. > Dialing 1+ doesn't imply a toll call in those places, nor should it > anywhere else. For those of you living in states with erstwhile > single area codes where this used to be true, I have a suggestion: get > used to it. Sorry the telcos lied to you about 1+ == toll, but > sometimes, them's the breaks. In any event, 1+ to other area codes > regardless of toll is mandated by the F-C-C. If your local telco > still allows ten-digit dialing without the prepended 1+, well, good > luck trying to keep it. The above is a rather impressive agglomeration of ignorance and arrogance. What evidence do you have that the FCC has mandated that calls to other area codes must be dialed with eleven (and not ten or seven) digits? How then do you explain the existence of 10D inter-NPA local dialing in places like the Washington, DC metro area, the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro area, or parts of North Carolina? What do you and the FCC plan to do about 10D local dialing in metro Toronto (remember, Canada is beyond the FCC's jurisdiction)? If there's anyone who needs to "get used to it", it's the minority of NANP residents (in just eight US states) who refuse to accept that the "toll requires 1+" rule is the NANP norm (covering over two-thirds of its residents), not the exception. And yes, I said "toll requires 1+", not "1+ == toll". The whole point of this thread is that even local numbers should be dialable as 1+10D, as Bellcore recommends, even if they can also be dialed using seven or ten digits. Once the NANP phases out 7D dialing, even the holdouts in CA, IL, NY, NJ, PA, WV, NH and ME should probably consider allowing local calls to be dialed without mandating a leading 1+. The dialing plan then becomes simple and uniform: all NANP calls can be dialed as 1+10D, be they local or toll. But local calls can also be dialed using the 10D short-cut method. Only toll calls would *require* the leading 1+. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Bill Newkirk Subject: Re: GE 916 Wireless Phone Jack System Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:33:12 -0400 Organization: Rockwell Avionics/Collins Bill Newkirk wrote: > I don't remember the values we used to use back when I was involved with > a carrier current radio station in college. Seemed like it was a 1000V > cap (or maybe 1500 V) and on the order of 1 uF or so, maybe smaller. I've since been informed that's there's a device available with the right size caps in the form of a 220 V appliance adapter. You unplug the dryer or stove, plug in the device, plug the appliance into the device. The device's internal caps cross connect the RF between the two sides of the transformer and the appliance continues to operate normally. However, I don't know how hard a sale it is to tell people ... "to get your phone to work, put this thing on the end of the dryer cord and plug it in." ------------------------------ From: wa1hoz@a3bgate.nai.net (Gerry Belanger) Subject: Re: What is Davar? Date: 19 Aug 1996 21:51:56 GMT Organization: North American Internet Tad Cook (tad@ssc.com) wrote: > In GTE territory east of Seattle, you can dial 411 (which was retired > about a quarter century ago as the directory assistance number) and > get a computer voice which reads back the number you are calling from. > If you dial # before the voice starts, then it reads back the number > in the form of a rapid DTMF sequence. What you have described is an Automatic Number Announcer (ANA). > I've heard this system is called DAVAR. What is it used for? I can > understand how the voice announcement could be useful for pair > identification, but exactly how is the DTMF readback of the calling > number used? Davar is CO test equipment used for line and records verification. It uses the ANA's DTMF spill to somewhat automate the process. A tech puts a special head on a cross-connect block, and the Davar dials the ANA for each line on the block. Results can be checked against office records. The ANA is still available for use by frame techs and outside installers. I have not actually seen a Davar. But the chances are better than even I designed the ANA. 8-). Gerry Belanger, WA1HOZ wa1hoz@a3bgate.nai.net Newtown, CT g.belanger@ieee.org ------------------------------ From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: InterLATA connectivity in 609? Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 10:30:39 EDT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ In article , writes: > I am working on a project that requires that I run a T1 circuit > between the two LATAs in South Jersey, the Atlantic LATA and the > Delaware LATA. These two LATAs comprise the 609 area code. > I've gotten some quotes from national vendors of Inter-LATA DS1 and > frame-relay circuits, but the prices are outrageous -- mostly over > $3,000 per month. I've gotten quotes from EMI, Cable & Wireless, and > LDDS/WorldCom. I can't imagine MCI, Sprint, or AT&T would be any less > expensive. My company has sites in Lawrenceville, NJ (609 Delaware Valley), Pomona, NJ (609 Atlantic) and Langhorne, PA (215). It turned out to be cheaper to make sure each segment crossed a state line. Therefore, we have no direct link between Lawrenceville and Pomona - just links to Langhorne, PA. Since the computer room is in Langhorne anyway it works out well. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 13:59:09 GMT From: azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear) Subject: Re: ISDN D-Channel Data and Internet Voice >> azur@netcom.com wrote: >>> Although I believe few consumer devices now feature D-channel data >>> support, I think it would be an excellent way to enable reasonable >>> cost Internet phone service. It removes the requirement for having to >>> remain on-line while still offering fast call set-up. It would also >>> enable inexpensive home Web servers, again because the server need >>> only be on-line when its in use. >> But wouldn't the fact that the D channel is only 9.6Kbps make for problems >> given the relatively small bandwidth? >> Most of the Internet Telephony producvts I've seen (heard) demonstrated >> are passable at 14.4Kbps but don't get "good" until 28.8Kbps. > It would be wrong to transmit the "data" on the D-channel. IMHO, it > should be used only for signalling (or the packet switched connection, > if the phone company supports this). However it might be used to > established a connection to the ISP on demand, like the usual > call-back works. I didn't intend to imply that the D-channel be used for the actual transport of voice or home/small business Web pages. The D-channel's bandwidth is too small for adequate performance and the per packet charges would likely be too high to make it economical. As Thomas said, the D-channel is best for on-demand set-up and tear-down of B-channel connections, which typically require only in the 10s of milliseconds. This cooperative use could make Internet telephony and small Web servers constantly available and at low cost. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 Steve Schear | Internet: azur@netcom.com Lamarr Labs | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 7075 West Gowan Road | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #425 ******************************